Error Checking CD's

[Nitro89]

I understand there are a few things like 'accuraterip' and 'itunes error checking' out there for when you rip your CD's, but does it do anything if you rip your CD to a lossless format such as ALAC or FLAC?

[t0nee1]

As far as Accuraterip is concerned, no it doesn't make a difference..Ripping to flac or other lossless format will result in identical data file(s) from the original CD tracks, when decoding/uncompressing them..Makes for a great archive..You can use the flacs in the future to convert to other lossless or lossy formats..
Think of lossless as you would a zip file..
http://flac.sourceforge.net/

Edit: just to add, I'd rip with either EAC or dBpoweramp if your goal is accurate/secure rips..
http://www.accuraterip.com/

[Nitro89]

Edit: just to add, I'd rip with either EAC or dBpoweramp if your goal is accurate/secure rips..
http://www.accuraterip.com/

But that's what I am asking about, if I ripping my audio cd's to ALAC, will they need to be checked for errors using Accuraterip or iTunes error checking, because will they not be a exact copy?

[Dr_Layne]

EAC is free and uses accuraterip. dBpoewramp is shareware ($36) to register but has a 21 day trial. I have used both and prefer dBpoweramp. It has a better interface, can encode to apple lossless, imports album artwork easily, and the results will import to iTunes without a fuss.

A_L

[Nitro89]

Yes, I know that, but my question is if I am ripping my audio cd's to ALAC or FLAC (ANY LOSSLESS FORMAT), will they need to be checked for errors using Accuraterip or iTunes error checking, because will they not be a exact copy of the CD?

[hech54]

Yes, I know that, but my question is if I am ripping my audio cd's to ALAC or FLAC (ANY LOSSLESS FORMAT), will they need to be checked for errors using Accuraterip or iTunes error checking, because will they not be a exact copy of the CD?

Please list the types of errors you think you will be missing by not error checking.

[Nitro89]

Yes, I know that, but my question is if I am ripping my audio cd's to ALAC or FLAC (ANY LOSSLESS FORMAT), will they need to be checked for errors using Accuraterip or iTunes error checking, because will they not be a exact copy of the CD?

Please list the types of errors you think you will be missing by not error checking.

I don't fully understand your question, but from the research I have carried out about Accuraterip, is that the CD Drive could miss-read the information from your audio cd resulting in small jolts which could damage your speakers.

[jman98]

I don't fully understand your question, but from the research I have carried out about Accuraterip, is that the CD Drive could miss-read the information from your audio cd resulting in small jolts which could damage your speakers.

That sounds like marketing crap (in other words, "lies") to sell software. I have NEVER heard of such. NEVER.

I'd suggest that you just rip with a ripper you trust like EAC and don't do error checking and get on with your life. If you want to live your life paralyzed by the fear that somehow a rip might not be exactly identical to the original and spend as much or more of your spare time doing error checking, disc scans and so on as you did actually ripping, you're just going to have to go down that path without most of us.

[hech54]

I don't fully understand your question, but from the research I have carried out about Accuraterip, is that the CD Drive could miss-read the information from your audio cd resulting in small jolts which could damage your speakers.

That sounds like marketing crap (in other words, "lies") to sell software. I have NEVER heard of such. NEVER.

I'd suggest that you just rip with a ripper you trust like EAC and don't do error checking and get on with your life. If you want to live your life paralyzed by the fear that somehow a rip might not be exactly identical to the original and spend as much or more of your spare time doing error checking, disc scans and so on as you did actually ripping, you're just going to have to go down that path without most of us.

This Accurate-Rip stuff is free and included with EAC....but the rest of your post is 100% dead-on.

[lordsmurf]

LMAO! @ hech...

[Nitro89]

thank you, but why would they release free software on something that doesn't exist?

[Cornucopia]

I think you guys are misunderstanding AccurateRip (or maybe I am).

It was my understanding that:
EAC, if you let it, does testing on your drives to see if they pass enough C2 info between the drive and the software.
If the drive DOES support it, EAC then tests your drive to find out it's specific flavor of error correction algorithm (there are a number of them), as well as test to see what Read-to-Write-to-Read sector offset there might be (if any) and compensates for all this.
Then, when EAC rips and reports no errors, it can cross-check its output file(s)'s resulting MD5 Hash against a Database of known successful and accurately ripped popular titles.
If all goes well, you know that you've got a 100% perfect bit-for-bit copy, which is as good as one can get when using only AudioCD data sectors.

So, my answer to the OP would be that EAC at least rips FIRSTLY to a LPCM WAV format (which is the reference that it creates the MD5 hash from) and then in a background process afterward, converts to whatever format you want as your end format. If this is lossless, then a conversion and UN-conversion step would end back up with the same original WAV files, with the same resulting MD5 (which is what you would want to use anyway if your were creating a dupe CD).

If you're staying in losslessly compressed territory (because your media player could play it directly), then don't even worry about it. An MD5 of a lossless file would bear no resemblance to the MD5 of the original LPCM WAV.

Scott

[hech54]

I think you guys are misunderstanding AccurateRip (or maybe I am).

EAC isn't AccurateRip. You can add AccurateRip to EAC as a plugin....but if it takes less that 2 hours
to rip your CD.....you are not using the AccurateRip plugin.

[Cornucopia]

I didn't say EAC was AccurateRip. EAC make use of it (when you tell it). That's pretty much the essence of a plugin.

I do occasionally use this. It's not BS; it IS based on a thorough understanding of the inadequacies of AudioCD technology and the ways in which modern drives can achieve a workaround, although the FearMongering of "Damaged Speakers and Hearing" is way overblown. At worst with most NON-A.R. rips, what could happen is a few randomly-spaced millisecond-long ticks or mutes. (I went to the AccurateRip website to read what they had to say about this, and YEP it was pretty much what I was thinking)

My drives RARELY take 2 hours+ to rip though - probably because I keep my CDs in great condition. I still have a copy (among others) of Donald Fagen "Nightfly" from 1983 that plays without a single skip. So it just depends on the discs.

Don't use it if you don't think it's worth it, but don't tell someone else that it's worthless, just because you don't find any use in it yourself. Sounds to me like the OP really digs the idea.

Scott

[hech54]

I didn't say EAC was AccurateRip. EAC make use of it (when you tell it). That's pretty much the essence of a plugin.

In this detailed description of what EAC does...is this with or without the AccurateRip plugin installed/activated?

It was my understanding that:
EAC, if you let it, does testing on your drives to see if they pass enough C2 info between the drive and the software.
If the drive DOES support it, EAC then tests your drive to find out it's specific flavor of error correction algorithm (there are a number of them), as well as test to see what Read-to-Write-to-Read sector offset there might be (if any) and compensates for all this.
Then, when EAC rips and reports no errors, it can cross-check its output file(s)'s resulting MD5 Hash against a Database of known successful and accurately ripped popular titles.
If all goes well, you know that you've got a 100% perfect bit-for-bit copy, which is as good as one can get when using only AudioCD data sectors.

[Cornucopia]

Well, I'd call the part about "cross-checking MD5 with a known rip database" the part that is specific to AccurateRip. The other parts are what EAC calls "secure ripping" and did prior to including A.R.

Even so, it could still not be 100% if the disc is really scratched. What I'd like to see would be a merger of these technigues and that of ISOBuster's IBQ managed image, where you can finish the same image using multiple drives.

Scott

[Nitro89]

Is there any point of using this software if your CD's are in MINT condition?

[t0nee1]

Is there any point of using this software if your CD's are in MINT condition?

If you are that anal, err serious, then yes!..Guess I am since, I rip with EAC or DBPA..
That said, even a CD that appears in "MINT" condition can have errors..In which case, it can possibly indicate a bad pressing or un-noticeable/minor scratches/blemish etc..

[Nitro89]

Is there any point of using this software if your CD's are in MINT condition?

If you are that anal, err serious, then yes!..Guess I am since, I rip with EAC or DBPA..
That said, even a CD that appears in "MINT" condition can have errors..In which case, it can possibly indicate a bad pressing or un-noticeable/minor scratches/blemish etc..

I have a CD in bad condition which I bought from a boot sale, I inserted the CD, I used dbpoweramp (installed with accuraterip), about five of the songs from the CD said the rip was inaccurate, isn't the software supposed to "FIX" the inaccurate rips and not just tell me? Even with the inaccurate rip, I don't hear any pops or ticks anywhere on any of the tracks?

[Dr_Layne]

Not every cd is in acurrate rip. Recent remasters/reissues or cd's from different countries may not be in the database yet. It's updated only twice a year. As long as you rip in secure mode, and no errors are reported, you should be fine.

[Nitro89]

the CD i am having problems with was released in 1993.

Also, is the CD that has errors OR the CD drive because from what I have read it looks more like the CD drive?

[hech54]

Even with the inaccurate rip, I don't hear any pops or ticks anywhere on any of the tracks?

That is exactly what we have been telling you for two days.

[Nitro89]

Why would it say if my CD has errors?

[hech54]

Why would it say if my CD has errors?

It supposedly does have errors...

about five of the songs from the CD said the rip was inaccurate

...but you would never know/hear the difference because AccurateRip is complete bullshit.


Do you now understand that you just proved to yourself that AccurateRip is complete bullshit?

about five of the songs from the CD said the rip was inaccurate....I don't hear any pops or ticks anywhere on any of the tracks

[Nitro89]

I guess, but what kind of errors would my CD have? And why aren't they noticeable?

[MOVIEGEEK]

I guess, but what kind of errors would my CD have? And why aren't they noticeable?

CD's can have two kinds of errors.
C1 errors are usually data corruption caused by a bad write, C2 errors are usually caused by physical damage to the polycarbonate or dye layer. Copy-protected data CD's usually use a technique to fool a CD-ROM into thinking the disc has errors.
I use ISOBuster to extract problematic CD's.

[hech54]

I guess, but what kind of errors would my CD have?

The answer is obvious....NONE.

[Cornucopia]

hech54, I'm surprised at you!

That would be like saying in the 1700's that if a scientist said there were little "microscopic animals" that make you sick, and you neither GOT SICK, nor COULD SEE ANY ANIMALS, that the scientist was spouting BS, even if the scientist could prove they were there on you.

As we know now, microbes, viruses & bacteria come in verious degrees of toxicity, and a small dosage of a hardly detrimental bacteria isn't enough to even make you feel under the weather, but it doesn't mean it's not there. Just that you can handle it.

Same way with these CDs. Some pops and ticks are nothing to sweat about, but that doesn't mean they're not there, just that you can handle it. All this (AccurateRip) is telling you is that there ARE or AREN'T any errors (aka MICROBES) in your sample (by testing it against a known sample). No need to cry foul, just because in your experience you can handle the small stuff.

Scott

[Nitro89]

hech54, I'm surprised at you!

That would be like saying in the 1700's that if a scientist said there were little "microscopic animals" that make you sick, and you neither GOT SICK, nor COULD SEE ANY ANIMALS, that the scientist was spouting BS, even if the scientist could prove they were there on you.

As we know now, microbes, viruses & bacteria come in verious degrees of toxicity, and a small dosage of a hardly detrimental bacteria isn't enough to even make you feel under the weather, but it doesn't mean it's not there. Just that you can handle it.

Same way with these CDs. Some pops and ticks are nothing to sweat about, but that doesn't mean they're not there, just that you can handle it. All this (AccurateRip) is telling you is that there ARE or AREN'T any errors (aka MICROBES) in your sample (by testing it against a known sample). No need to cry foul, just because in your experience you can handle the small stuff.

Scott

Because they need to add CD's to their database, can't my sample be measured against the wrong sample?

And how noticeable are these ticks and pops?

[t0nee1]

WTF nitro89, first you say this,

Even with the inaccurate rip, I don't hear any pops or ticks anywhere on any of the tracks?

Then this,

And how noticeable are these ticks and pops?

Don't freakin sweat it, if the ticks and pops are inaudible(to you)....Else, just knowing there are errors can effect your perception..
Think, placebo effect...